The Great Debate

Chess has the reputation for being one of the most intellectual of all games. Its champions are geniuses. And the world champion in 1905 was Emanuel Lasker, a German mathematician. Indeed, that year he published a paperⁱ regarding Noetherian rings and primary ideals, which are mathematical concepts. It was only one of many mathematical papers he authored.

In the same year, 1905, Albert Einstein, a patent examiner in Bern, published four papers which discussed the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and the equivalence of mass and energy. The year became known as his “annus mirabilis,” his year of miracles, and it changed the world's notions of time and space. He was one of the greatest theoretical physicists who ever lived – perhaps the greatest.

And he played chess. Fairly well, but certainly not in championship circles. He was not in Lasker's league. Later in his life he got to know Lasker and lost many a game to him. According to “Syrtis” on the chess.com web site, “Einstein had this to say about chess 'Chess grips its exponent, shackling the mind and brain so that the inner freedom and independence of even the strongest character cannot remain unaffected.' It seems he thought you could be a serious chess player or something else, but not both. There is probably a great deal of truth in this.”

They were two great minds. One could defeat the other in chess, while the results were reversed when it came to theoretical physics. But the preeminence of each in his own field did not in any way detract from the other.

The current world champion in chess is Magnus Carlsen, while NBC Sports lists Anthony Davis first in its top ten “one and done” ratings for college basketball. You'd be a fool to bet on Davis if the two of them were playing chess, or Carlsen if basketball.

And that's the point. Context counts. You can't judge one individual – or idea – using criteria devised for another. It's a mistake that's commonly made. And when trying to evaluate a particular idea it's important to remember that the proper standards for understanding it may be different from the ones being used. It makes no sense to evaluate a thesis, and find it wanting, using criteria which don't apply to it – however powerful that idea may be in its own realm.

Additionally, the proofs and evidence offered may not even be believed by the individual presenting them. In a formal debate, the winner is the one who makes the most convincing arguments irrespective of the side of the argument to which he's assigned, and whether he believes them or not. Debating is an “art” perfected by the Sophists, the ancient Greek philosophers after whom sophistry is named.ⁱⁱ

So the trick is to convince the listener. Politicians do it all the time. One of their most important techniques is that of framing the debate – making sure that whatever the issues ought to be, they, and not their opponents, have defined both them and the context in which they are to be discussed. Misdirection. It's better to have the voter consider irrelevant ideas that will improve your image than any truths that might weaken it. Politicians tell the voter what they think he wants to hear, whether or not they believe it themselves.

And much of any other discussion in our society also falls victim to the misdirection associated with a framing of the debate. It is most striking in the media, which seem to have no concept of religion or, if they do, no tolerance for the possibility that it may contain some truth. Science is the context by which everything must be judged. For an acceptable answer to any question there must be a scientifically verifiable explanation. If one cannot be produced, whatever explanation is given qualifies as voodoo mythology. Such is the impression you'll get from the press.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” That's the way the King James Bible describes Creation.

Stephen Hawking's view is different. “The universe can create itself out of nothing, and God is no longer necessary [as an explanation].”ⁱⁱⁱ Religion should be discarded in favor of scientific proof. After all, “man is the measure of all things.”^iv In a description of his book, Hawking maintains that “ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature.”

But aren't the two – science and religion – speaking different languages? Don't they make different assumptions and shouldn't they be judged by different criteria? How can either justifiably claim the other to be untrue?

Science demands proof before any assertion is accepted as fact while religion uses belief as its coin. Although the evidence for Hawking's premise is mathematical, and through such means he deduced that “God is no longer necessary,” his calculations are adequate “proof” for the scientific community. I don't have sufficient knowledge of either physics or mathematics to understand the origin of the original particle which, following the “Big Bang,” expanded to form our universe, nor the laws of physics that either preceded it or followed it (if they did not arise concurrent with it) but I'm willing to chalk that up to my ignorance.

It's hard, however, to see how the idea that there can be the spontaneous formation of the particle and the laws of physics, since I have always been taught that you can't get something from nothing. Not even a single minute particle. And unless you accept the idea that some Being created them, you have to “believe” that the laws of physics legislated themselves. Perhaps before time existed – although I don't know what that means either.

Unless, of course, you accept the idea of extra-rational causes. Unless you believe. And if that's the case, science and religion are speaking the same language, using the same criteria.

Or, perhaps, they are using different criteria completely unrelated to those of their adversary.^v Perhaps the best explanation is one that comes from science. Schrödinger's cat, the one in the closed box, was both alive and dead. Simultaneously. Both were true and they did not contradict each other. Schrödinger meant it as a proof that some aspects of quantum theory didn't make sense. It was a kind of joke.

But maybe we should give it some credence when we speak of science and religion.

Next episode: “Kindle 'im Danno” – There. I said it and I'm glad.

I        “Zur Theorie der Moduln und Ideale,” Math. Ann. 60 (1): 19–116

ii       “The Sophists held no values other than winning and succeeding. They were not true believers. They were secular atheists, relativists and cynical about religious beliefs and all traditions. They believed and taught that 'might makes right'. They were pragmatists trusting in whatever works to bring about the desired end at whatever the cost. They made a business of education and profited from it.” – So says “An Introduction to Philosophy” by Dr. Philip A. Pecorino  

(on-line http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/CONTENTS.htm)

iii       “The Grand Design,” Hawking and Mlodinow.

iv       So said Protagoras, the man who, according to Wikipedia, “Plato credits ... with having invented the role of the professional sophist.”

v        “Adversary” is a bad word. The two sides should view different views with respect and interest and not consider them as attacks on their own positions.